MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124264528 · doi:10.1111/cjag.2016.64.issue-4

Consumer preferences for improved hen housing: Is a cage a cage?

2015· preprint· en· W3124264528 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Maurice Doyon, John Cranfield, Stéphane Bergeron, Lota D. Tamini, George K. Criner

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsPoultry Industry Council
KeywordsCageLivestockAgricultural sciencePurchasingWelfare economicsBusinessEconomicsGeographyMarketingBiologyForestryMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is growing concern amongst some consumers regarding animal welfare in livestock production. Several regions, including California and the European Union, have banned the use of battery cage production systems for laying hens. In Quebec, battery cages are being phased out with new barns required to be equipped with enriched cages. In this paper, the empirical data from two discrete choice experiments (DCE) are used to understand Quebec consumers’ demand for alternative laying hen housing systems and desired attributes. The results of the first DCE suggest that Quebec consumers are not willing to pay a premium for eggs produced in enriched cage systems, in spite of evidence that they prefer aspects of that system. Using an online survey we find that consumers have a negative stigma related to the word ‘cage’. A second DCE is therefore conducted to estimate consumer preferences for different amenities commonly found in enriched cage systems, without the possible negative framing effect from the word “cage”. The results suggest that consumers have a positive value for the enhanced housing system for laying hens, results also indicate a differentiated demand for the various elements of the enhanced system. Les consommateurs sont de plus en plus soucieux du bien-être animal. Plusieurs régions, incluant la Californie et l’Europe, interdissent l’élevage de poules dans des systèmes de cages traditionnelles. Au Québec, ce type de cage sera graduellement éliminé, les producteurs ayant collectivement décidé que les nouvelles constructions seront équipées de cages enrichies. Ce papier présence les résultats de deux enquêtes avec choix expérimentaux discrets (CED) qui permettent de mieux comprendre la demande des consommateurs québécois pour les différents éléments d’un système de cage enrichie. La première enquête démontre une absence de valeur positive pour ce système, bien que les éléments du système de cage enrichie soient valorisés. Une enquête en ligne démontre un fort biais négatif associé au mot cage. Un deuxième CED, qui n’utilise pas le mot cage, est utilisé pour déterminer les préférences des consommateurs pour les différents éléments d’un système de cage enrichie. Les résultats indiquent une valeur positive pour le système enrichie avec des valeurs différenciées selon les éléments qui composent ce système de logement des pondeuses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.108 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207